We have been given little time to read and understand more than 1,100 pages that are chock-full of special interest provisions, corporate subsidies, and environmental rollbacks. My Republican colleagues have followed the example set by Vice President Cheney's secretive energy task force, tilting both the process and the substance towards their energy industry friends.

This conference report does include the consensus electric reliability provisions which Democrats have supported, but as I feared, the bill may actually prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from ensuring that regional transmission groups, or "RTO's," have enough authority to prevent a repetition of the August blackout. Without stronger RTO's we really aren't addressing the whole problem.

None of the strong anti-fraud provisions advocated by Democrats have been included in the bill. Rather, it repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), a strong consumer and investor protection law without which California's Enron problems during 2000-2001 would have been much worse and more widespread. In its place are a number of minor provisions that will not protect our Nation's ratepayers and investors from fraudulent activity.

The electricity title also includes a number of provisions for certain utilities who evidently did have a seat at the table, which tie federal regulators' hands and tilt the playing field in their favor with respect to other wholesale market competitors. Finally, the title preempts states and local authorities on transmission line siting decisions.

The conference report shortchanges our rivers, as well. It largely adopts the egregious hydroelectric provisions contained in the House-passed bill which heavily tilt the relicensing process in favor of utilities by giving them special rights and procedures that are not afforded to other parties who have an interest in the use of public resources, like states, Indian tribes, sportsmen, or conservationists. This represents a substantial departure from the bipartisan consensus achieved during the last Congress.

One of the more troubling aspects of this report is its direct assault on the Nation's safe drinking water supply. It contains a highly controversial measure that eliminates existing federal authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that hydraulic fracturing does not endanger underground drinking water sources. In addition, the conference report provides liability protection for MTBE manufacturers involved in drinking water contamination, leaving states, localities, and ultimately taxpayers, to pay billions of dollars to clean up the MTBE manufacturers' mess. The conference agreement also rewrites leaking underground storage tank laws to require taxpayers, not polluters, to pay for cleanup of contamination even when the responsible party can afford to pay. This violates longstanding "polluter pays" principles and was opposed by the Administration earlier this year.

The bill contains a number of provisions which were not included in either bill and on which there is no legislative record at all, including some significant Clean Air Act related provisions. The conference agreement includes even worse provisions outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. For example, we are told that the tax subsidies alone will cost at least $22 billion -- compared to the President's request of $8 billion, but I hear no complaints from an Administration that regularly objects to far lesser amounts for education, health care, and our nation's veterans. I can only conclude that because Republicans are in control across the board, they can't help themselves. Perhaps someday they will learn the difference between being a friend to industry and being a cheerleader for industry.

I have written a good many energy bills during my tenure in Congress and I fully understand the very complicated technical and regional problems that confront you. It has been my experience that these matters are only successfully resolved through sincere bipartisan negotiations that by their very nature take time and do not respond well to artificial deadlines imposed by leadership. It is regrettable that we find ourselves in this position and that for the first time in many, many years, I will vote against a comprehensive energy bill in its current form.